2020 (11) TMI 237 - HC - Indian Laws

Court Emphasizes Limited Scope of Interference in Section 482 Applications

Babu Khan Versus State Of U.P. And Anr.

The court dismissed the application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., emphasizing the limited scope of interference at the interlocutory stage and the ... Dishonor of Cheque - offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act - contention of the complaint was in corroboration, with evidence, collected by the Magistrate, during enquiry - HELD THAT:- It is apparent that a complaint for offence punishable, under Section 138 of N.I. Act, of Police Station Quarsi, District Aligarh, was filed in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, being Complaint Case No.12 of 2018, by Shamsher against Babu Khan, with this contention that both of them were under acquaintance. On 15.6.2015, Rupess Three Lakhs and Fifty Thousand and on 20.6.2017, Rupees Two Lakhs, in all Rupees Five Lakhs and Fifty thousand, was taken by Babu Khan, for purchasing a house and solemnising marriage of his daughter and this money was paid by the complainant from the amount obtained by sale of his house, situated at Delhi. Subsequently, money was demanded back, but, it was not paid back. This Court, in exercise of inherent power, under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., is not expected to make analytic analysis of factual aspects because the same is a question, to be gone into, during course of trial, by the Trial court. This Application, under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., merits dismissal and it stands dismissed. Issues involved:Setting aside impugned summoning order under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act - Abuse of process of law - Application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. - Corroboration of complaint with evidence - Jurisdiction of Magistrate to pass summoning order - Exercise of inherent power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.Analysis:The judgment pertains to an application filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking to set aside an impugned summoning order passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate. The applicant, Babu Khan, challenged the summoning order issued in a Criminal Complaint Case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. The applicant contended that he had responded to the notice given by the complainant, denying the alleged issuance of a cheque, but the complaint falsely claimed no reply was received. The court examined the complaint, which alleged that the complainant had given a significant amount of money to the applicant for specific purposes, and a cheque issued in favor of the complainant was dishonored by the bank. The court found that there was sufficient ground for the summoning order based on the evidence collected during the inquiry conducted by the Magistrate.The court emphasized that the factual aspects presented before the court were not to be analyzed under the inherent jurisdiction of Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. The court cited precedents to highlight that the function of evaluating evidence and accusations lies within the domain of the trial court and not the High Court exercising inherent powers. The court referred to various judgments to underscore the limited scope of interference at the interlocutory stage and the need for sparing and cautious exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482.Furthermore, the court discussed the prevention of abuse of the court's process and highlighted that the High Court could quash proceedings under Section 482 only in cases where the complaint was frivolous, vexatious, or oppressive. The court reiterated that the exercise of inherent jurisdiction should be within the prescribed limits and should not involve an inquiry into the likelihood of allegations being established by evidence. Consequently, the court dismissed the application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., emphasizing the need for adherence to the established legal principles and the jurisdictional boundaries of the court.In conclusion, the judgment underscores the importance of respecting the jurisdictional boundaries of the court, the limited scope of interference at the interlocutory stage, and the necessity of exercising inherent powers judiciously and sparingly. The court's decision to dismiss the application highlights the adherence to legal principles and the need for a comprehensive trial to evaluate the evidence and accusations presented in the case.